Abstract
Background
The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects
data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe.
Methods
Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive
distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD).
Primary outcome was 90-day mortality.
Results
Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients
underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7–20) and 9 (2–20)
for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0–77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7%
(IQR 9.7–45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD
mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which
15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30
(43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for
MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD.
Discussion
Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly
using laparoscopy and MIPD in about a quarter of patients slightly more often using
the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria
for MIPD.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to HPBAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients.Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 372-377
- Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-matched study from a national cohort of patients.Ann Surg. 2018; 268: 151-157
- Matched case-control analysis comparing laparoscopic and open pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with periampullary tumors.Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 146-155
- Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: greatest benefit for the frail.Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 5234-5240
- Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): a multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial.Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 2-9
- Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial.Br J Surg. 2020; 107: 1281-1288
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open approach for pancreatoduodenectomy: the PADULAP randomized controlled trial.Ann Surg. 2018; 268: 731-739
- Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours.Br J Surg. 2017; 104: 1443-1450
- Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 6: 438-447
- Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial.The lancet gastroenterology & hepatology. 2019; 4: 199-207
- The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection.Ann Surg. 2020; 271: 1-14
- Designing the European registry on minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a pan-European survey.HPB. 2020; : 566-574
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.Lancet. 2007; 370: 1453-1457
- Origin of the ASA classification.Anesthesiology. 1979; 51: 179
- The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years after.Surgery. 2017; 161: 584-591
- Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).Surgery. 2007; 142: 761-768
- Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition.Surgery. 2007; 142: 20-25
- Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery.Surgery. 2011; 149: 680-688
- The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 187-196
- Dataset for the histopathological reporting of carcinomas of the pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct.2002
- Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.BJS, 2021
- A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy.Surg Endosc. 2015; 29: 3163-3170
- Robotic distal pancreatectomy versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study for short-term outcomes.Front Med. 2015; 9: 356-360
- Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian J Surg. 2019; 42: 32-45
- Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic tumors: a single surgeon's experience of 228 consecutive cases.Surg Endosc. 2020; 34: 2465-2473
- Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.J Surg Oncol. 2017; 116: 461-469
- National pancreatic fistula rates after minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP analysis.J Am Coll Surg. 2019; 229: 192-199 e1
- Transatlantic registries of pancreatic surgery in the United States of America, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden: comparing design, variables, patients, treatment strategies, and outcomes.Surgery. 2021; 169: 396-402
- Defining a hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in the United States.JAMA Surg. 2017; 152: 336-342
- American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification.Indian J Anaesth. 2011; 55: 111-115
- The Miami international evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection.Ann Surg. 2019; (in press)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 17, 2022
Accepted:
July 22,
2022
Received:
April 1,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Uncorrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc.
